The headline, I’ll concede, is a cheap shot, but when you’re dealing with people who’ll stop at nothing to score a cheap point, all bets are off.

The ridiculous, and rather sinister Iona Institute, after all, are the people who falsely claimed to the Constitutional Convention that research showed children had better outcomes when raised by heterosexual couples.

This was nonsense, and it prompted a response from the authors of the research, Child Trends, as follows

no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex partners

That’s Iona for you. Not too scrupulous about checking the facts. Next time you hear some Iona hack talking about studies, it would be no harm to remind them of their disgraceful record when it comes to quoting research.

This crowd are not all that impressive when you peel back the layers of PR. All we’re talking about is a bunch of religious ideologues with disproportionate access to the TV and radio. Their talking heads aren’t even all that impressive, as Breda O’Brien illustrated recently on Morning Ireland. Even I cringed for her, and that’s saying quite a lot.

For the moment, Alabama has no choice but to accept same-sex marriage, but of course they’ll fight it.

Remember, this is what Iona are fighting to align us with. Alabama of all things.

Just peel back the scab of prejudice and you’ll see what we’re really dealing with.

18 Responses to “It’s Official. Alabama is More Tolerant Than the Iona Institute”

Sadly your article too is based only on noise and misinformation…..
Real experiences of countries where same ex marriage was legalised now demonstrate many worrying new statistics….like
A higher than normal increase in mental illness
A higher level of domestic violence and suicide
Inability to provide stability for upbringing a child

And all because same sex marriage is an un-natural union.
The fruits of anything that is un-natural are dangerous
and develop fast.
Same sex marriage is portrayed by most media in Ireland as romantic, loving, compassionate etc….and there is no real picture given of what in reality same sex marriage means in its formation…..the truth is that this union is between a him and an it….or two hims or two hers…a humper and a humpee….a screwer and a screwee….oh dear…oh dear….

I’d appreciate a link to the research you are basing your remarks on, and if you don’t have it then please refrain from spreading your childish bile, there are other eejits out there who might believe you unfortunately.

Jim, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t legally recognised same sex marriage a very recent development. Surely far to recent to have any meaningful stattistics or evidence on alleged increses in mental illness, domestic violence and suicide and an inability to provide stability for upbringing a child. Have you a link to a souce to this evidence?

As for same sex marriage being portrayed as romantic, loving compassionate etc … I sure some same sex marriages are, as are some hetrosexual marriages. Incidentally for hetrosexual marriages to be consumated they also require a humper and a humpee, a screwer and a screwee (what ridiculous descriptions) what exactly is you point?

See this link, Jim. The countries with huge levels of marriage breakdown have no recognition of same sex relationships. Those with lower levels of marriage breakdown have some/equal recognition of same sex relationships.

I have visited the Child Trends site and as you know it deals with a very wide spectrum of the strategic element of children’s progress and development and true to professional practice it never commits itself to anything definite. The statement extract that you quote above, ” No conclusions can be drawn from this research about the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex partners” is more or less typical of the “avoidance technique” to extend the dialogue without producing a result that they will stand by. “There is no evidence for………. , Results remain inconclusive……….., It cannot be empirically established …….., ” and so on and so on with their vague and wooly non-committal approach to everything.
In my opinion, Child Trends is representative of the total general approach to same-sex marriage.

Now, with this scientific uncertainty leading the way, we embark upon an extremely dangerous social experiment in which entire generations of children are placed at risk.
I repeat, entire generations of children are placed at risk, and in an appallingly selfish generation such as the present one which is so falsely concerned with child wellbeing, it never occurs to these “professional people” that what they are doing is effectively a strategic form of child abuse.

How will they answer if the experiment goes horribly wrong?

Well, it is very simple. With this kind of It will almost probably take many years to go horribly wrong in which case they won’t be around anymore to pick up the wreckage —- that is for another generation.

Now, over to the Iona Institute. These people at least know exactly what they stand for and they speak with an element of certainty that the others lack.
You look upon them as intolerant but you overlook a detail that I mentioned to you before, that toleration is not enlightenment as you imagine. Unless toleration is very carefully monitored, it becomes irresponsibility and neglect.
Make no mistake, there is a line to be drawn with toleration, and if this line is overstepped, all sorts of excess will be, not might be, the result.

Our society is founded upon a very delicate infrastructure and the essential unit of that infrastructure is the family. If the family is endangered, then the whole society which is made up of those families is in danger much like diseases which affect individual cells will threaten the body when enough cells are infected. Same-sex marriage is too different a structure of parent and child relationship to be tolerated and whether that organization, LBGT, which is so active in pushing this issue, likes it or not, it is against the natural order.

Now, I draw attention to comment no. 1, Jim Lynn.
There is one statement made there which is a scientific axiom and needs no reference:
“The fruits of anything that is unnatural are dangerous and develop fast”

Anyway, it is good to see that the Iona Institute kept it integrity when even the Southern Baptists seemed to be losing their grip. Hopefully, Alabama will find them inspiring enough to reform.

Iap337, despite your very long post, you somehow managed to miss the fact that the document that the Iona Institute bases their anti marriage equality arguments on never references same sex couples. Hence the huge disclaimer.

They might also, in the future, have to add a similar disclaimer with respect to overhead pylons or quantitative easing if someone who objects to either of these seeks to similarly misuse the Child Trends report. But so far, only the Iona Institute has been daft enough to try to pull that one.

Do you not realise the experiment which is the status quo has gone terribly wrong. The mental health issues of gay people regarding addiction, anxiety, depression and suicide research has continually shown to be a result of societies fear and reluctance to accept the LGBT community as equal and natural.Therefore the experiment has failed and when something clearly doesn t work then change is appropriate, surely you agree with that? Finally you say ‘entire generations of children are placed at risk’ …are you not interested in protecting the rights of future children who are born gay …are they not chidren too? Genuinely curious to how you answer these fundamental questions.

@iap Any chance you’d address the questions I posed …like I said I’m genuinely interested in your reply. I’m continually nonplussed by people with political views similar to those that you espouse and by way of your responses I hope to gain some form of clarity. Thanks in advance.

Yes I am the same person but I wasn’t aware that you were the same person until I went back and looked at the Bishop of Galway thread. I’m poor enough with remembering real names in the real world so virtual names in the virtual world is a step too far Im afraid. I notice in that [Bishop of Galway] thread you said you believe that sexuality is a choice people make so therefore I assume you don’t believe any children in the future will be born gay and therefore you don’t feel the need to protect an imaginary group of children. Apologies for answering for you and if my assumption is wrong then let me know.